[1] http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/CVonline/LOCAL_COPIES/AV09...
The S is for "stochastic" -- i.e. you get a different 2D projection every time you run it on the same inputs. Take it with a grain of salt.
That's not the part that's "stochastic"; sensitivity to initial conditions is just nonconvex optimization in action. You get the same thing with most other local embeddings.
The stochastic bit is that the model is based on optimizing "the asymmetric probability, pij , that i would pick j as its neighbor"[0]. Those probabilities and the associated positions in 2D space are not estimated stochastically (e.g. with Monte Carlo sampling) or anything, though.
Why in blue hell would anyone on HN be sharing TC links? Intuitively it seems more likely that people who share HN links are discussing these matters directly.
The same sorts of products delivered to "puppy and kitty" people didn't have the same effect, though the level of vitriol in the comments was similar.
Some demographics choose tighter filter bubbles for themselves than others, and moms are likely up there, as the single most important thing to mothers tends to be being a mother - it becomes an all-encompassing identity for many.
I'm really curious what the heck that "eye" is in the bottom right space of the clusters. Some cluster so radically orthogonal to any other content it has an order of magnitude more distance in differentiation?
I'm curious if a sampling error could explain why an English website like HN would get placed with the Japanese language sites. StackOverflow isn't placed by any related sites either.
If the weird results aren't from sampling artifacts, my best guess is that a lot of spambots must be linking to multiple legit sites regardless of relevance.
I'm confident that, given the right incentives, spam kings could discover conversational AI before any lab.
I have no idea what the point of the headline is after reading the above part of the post.
Edit: I patched it so it displays an alert if there are no matches.
not working for me on Chrome or Safari either
It seems like amateurs are more capable at detecting spam than the entire company but I sometimes wonder if they just know about it leave the spam bots because once they crack down, new ones will just pop up. Or if they keep them around at a tolerable level that doesn't drive real users away but still allows them to publish a higher "user count"
So, crowdsource spam detection.
They seem to have figured out that 20 fake accounts is not enough to get you to leave their service.
Also, they are apparently too busy battling isis (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/05/twitter-de...) to deal with the spam issue effectively.
Somehow its technically challenging to verify the content of this article.
The original Sammon's paper is here [1], this said from what I know isomaps are a more widespread tool - but I never found such a good visualization.
[1] http://theoval.cmp.uea.ac.uk/~gcc/matlab/sammon/sammon.pdf
Firefox definitely does cache intermediates (I've seen it do so as recently as today).